Home › PDS3 Standards › Telecon Archives › SCR 3-1127

SCR 3-1127

SCR 3-1127: Pointer/Object Ambiguity in the Standards Reference

Priority: high

Problem Summary

As labels become more complicated, we frequently encounter the case of multiple objects of the same basic type (IMAGE or TABLE, e.g.) being described in the same label. By convention we at SBN have always used unique identifiers for objects of similar type, which we formulate by prepending a descriptive modifier to the base type (as is done in the occasional SR example). Recent interaction with the Rosetta mission, however, has pointed out two major logical holes in the PDS label (and possibly ODL) standards: 1. I can find no requirement in the SR that object identifiers be unique within an ODL file. 2. I can find no statement in the SR that object identifiers in PDS labels must end, or even contain, the base object type. Similarly, there is not statement in the SR that requires that pointers and object with the same name should be mapped to each other based on their sequence in the file.

Working Group

R. Joyner (lead) M. Cayanan, L. Huber, S. Hughes, T. King, A. Raugh

Originator: Anne Raugh

Standards Change Request

VersionDateAuthor(s)FormatNote
12008-05-07Todd KingDOC
PDF
22008-05-07Todd KingDOC
PDF
32008-05-07Todd KingDOC
DOC
PDF
42008-05-07Todd KingDOC
DOC
PDF
52009-03-25Todd KingDOC
PDF
62009-06-30A. Raugh et al.DOC
DOC
PDF
PDF		no markup
with markup
no markup
with markup
72009-07-15E. RyeDOC
PDF

Discussion

Supplementary Material

Status

StatusDateTaskResponsible PartyResponse
SUBMITTED 2007-07-31Submit issue.ORIGIssue submitted through online interface 07/31/07.
Form working group.EN-SEORIGE. Rye sent email to S. Hardman on 07/31/07 requesting that he assign a Dev team member to this SCR.

Votes

A Tech Group vote to approve version 5 of this SCR, begun 06/18/09 and ended on 06/24/09, was inconclusive: 4-3-1-1 (yes-no-abstain-no vote). A newer version of this SCR is being developed.

NodeRepresentativeVersion 5
ATM–no vote
ENRon Joyneryes
GEOSusan Slavneyyes
IMGPatty Garciayes
NAIFBoris Semenovabstain
PPITodd King1yes
RINGSMitch Gordonno
RSDick Simpsonno
SBNAnne Raughno

1

This vote was submitted via the web interface several hours after the Standards Telecon vote.


Due to the inconclusive results of the above vote, the vote on whether or not to send the SCR to the MC was moot.

NodeRepresentativeVersion 5
GEOSusan SlavneyMC vote unwarranted
PPITodd KingMC vote unwarranted
RSDick SimpsonN/A


Version 7 of the SCR was approved by the Tech Group via web vote ending on 07/29/09 by a vote of 7-0 (yes-no).

NodeRepresentativeVersion 7
ATMLyle Huberyes
ENElizabeth D. Ryeyes
GEOaS. Slavneyyes
IMGPatty Garciayes
NAIFBoris Semenovyes
PPITodd Kingyes
RINGSmitchyes
RSDick Simpsonyes
SBNA. Raughyes

a

Question about how this applies to combined detached labels.


Via web vote ending on 07/29/09, the Tech Group voted 7-2 (MC vote unwarranted-submit to MC for vote) to recommend against an MC vote on version 7 of this SCR.

NodeRepresentativeVersion 7
ATMLyle Hubersubmit to MC for vote
ENElizabeth D. RyeMC vote unwarranted
GEOS. SlavneyMC vote unwarranted
IMGPatty GarciaMC vote unwarranted
NAIFBoris SemenovMC vote unwarranted
PPITodd KingMC vote unwarranted
RINGSmitchMC vote unwarranted
RSDick SimpsonMC vote unwarranted
SBNA. Raughsubmit to MC for vote